You wrote that this appears to be a civil rights issue
rather than a tax issue. It is a tax issue because
he filed inaccurate IRS returns, in which large sums of
money that he had received were not mentioned. He has
admitted this, although he is trying to shift the blame
to his accountant at that time. Thus that is one
charge that is valid.

Another valid charge is that of mail fraud. This
involves Duke soliciting money from supporters for his
political operations and expenses, and then take hundreds
of thousands of dollars of that money and blowing it in
gambling casinos and for personal investments. That is
the 'fraud', i.e. using the US mails to deceive people
into sending him funds. Duke has admitted to gambling
donor money but tries to say that he did nothing illegal,
i.e. posturing that all money received can be spent any
which way he pleases.

Don Black tries to dismiss the gambling of
donor money thing as mere 'character assassination'. He
doesn't specifically deny that the funds were gambled
away. He also doesn't deny that DD filed inaccurate
income tax returns. Black's piece is essentially simple a
somewhat dishonest whitewash of an old friend.

One charge dismissed was that involving Duke's sale of
his mailing list to another politician. Authorities
looked into that and found nothing illegal having
occurred there. But it is very much of interest to his
supporters as a moral or ethical issue as it involves a
breach of trust, as most of Duke's supporters and donors
did not and do not want their names and addresses and
other contact information passed to others and Duke was
and is perfectly well aware of that.

It is true that some US authorities do want to 'get'
Duke, but it is equally true that he gave them the
ammunition they needed for them, by his own choices and
deeds in committing illegal acts. The bottom line is that
he misled his donors, and he abused their trust, period.
I for one will never send another cent to him and I
certainly won't go along with the 'conspiracy' spin.

Joe B

Free
downloadof David Irving's booksBookmark
the download page to find the latest new free
books

David
Irving replies:

THANKS for that note and
for permission to publish. I do not know the rights and
wrongs of the issue, but feel it should be ventilated in
public, rather than in the secrecy of private plea
bargains. I myself have always been careful to make plain
to all my supporters that the funds which I raise go
partly for the legal costs, partly for the cost of
raising the legal funds (stationery, mail, labour etc),
and partly for the cost of staying alive. When my legal
battle ends, then I will stop appealing for funds. The
enemies of free speech have seemingly limitless funds
(remember the six million pound they poured into the
London High Court to defeat me!)

PS: I have never in my life
gambled, and don't drink or smoke. So none of the funds
go thataway!